United States | News & Politics

2221 readers

1107 users here now

Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Question: At what point can we safely assume that we no longer have our first amendment rights? (infosec.pub)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

The 1st Amendment should guarantee the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, the right to protest, and the right to talk to all levels of government about grievances.

Recently, I saw headlines that seem to indicate all 5 of those freedoms are being challenged via either executive order, by law enforcement (dispute the laws stating the contrary), or by the suggestion of very powerful people within the government (elected or otherwise).

I know that there will be pushback against these challenges to our essential liberties. But they will also be slow and require enforcement.

I'm just wondering at what point do we know that our freedoms are actually gone for good. And if we wait to know the answer, will there be anything left to do about it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago

So there's a common belief about the constitution and bill of rights et cetera, that I think is a key mis-framing of what the founders actually said.

What they said about structures of government, revolution, liberty, and so on, usually gets interpreted as a prescription for government: You're permitted to make laws, but certain laws are off limits, you're not allowed to make those laws. What they actually said was something different: They said people are going to talk to each other. They're going to practice their religion. If a governmental body arises which is trying to tell them not to do those things, it's revealed itself as a bunch of dangerous crap, not a government, and it's the duty of the people to overthrow it and replace it with something better. Or else, they will deserve the unjust laws.

"Endowed by their creator" and "inalienable" and whatnot. It's got nothing to do with what the government is "allowed" to do, or not. They took a lot more pragmatic, old-world view of things.